The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: ChuckJ on December 10, 2013, 07:20:57 AM
-
I originally posted this in another thread, but decided to give it it’s own just to make sure you see it.
You have bragged about posting on DU that you owned guns and have hunted and did not get banned for the post. Try posting the below at DU…
Unemployment is worse now than under President Bush. The American people are hurting.
We like to blame this on the Republicans and call them obstructionists; however, the fact remains that for the last few years of the Bush administration and for the first few years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of congress. Since there was no great improvement during these periods of congressional control, I have to assume that to some degree at least some of the Democrats that we have elected are part of the problem.
As a result, I’ve decided that from this point on, when I vote in an election, I will vote for candidates based solely on their ability to help the country as a whole and will disregard their political affiliation. This means that if I feel a particular candidate will be beneficial to the country I will vote for said candidate even if he or she is a Tea Party Republican.
This does NOT mean that I am turning away from the Democratic Party. I intend to remain a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party. It just means that I've decided to put the well-being of the country above the well-being of the party.
I have made this decision because I love the United States of America. I feel the USA is a great country with even greater potential.
-
This could be really fun or excruciatingly boring...
-
If it was posted over there I doubt a DUmmie would be able to get by the 4th word before clicking on the "alert abuse" link.
-
This could be really fun or excruciatingly boring...
If it involves Pretzelboy, I'm putting my money on the latter.
-
When the going gets tough, the
tough DUmmies get going....back to the safety of the DUmp.
-
So long pretz! We hardly knew ye....
Thankfully :wink:
-
If we had only read his diaries (or was that diarrhea) over at the dump, we surely would have fallen to our knees at our heroic leaders feet and begged for forgiveness and SNAP cards.
-
I originally posted this in another thread, but decided to give it it’s own just to make sure you see it.
You have bragged about posting on DU that you owned guns and have hunted and did not get banned for the post. Try posting the below at DU…
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
Just out of curiosity, when do you start figuring the post-holiday employment slump?
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
What is the labor participation rate today and how does that impact the unemployment numbers?
On edit...your completely inane and ludicrous insistence that insurance plans canceled due to Ocare were "junk" came straight from administration talking points.
-
Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0%
You can't possibly believe that. No one, not even a DUmmie is that stupid.
-
You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
But you might get replies......precious repliesssssssss.
-
Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% And you would be wrong about that.
After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO! You'd be wrong about that too.
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. Which you'd appear to be about as good at that as the Invincible Krugtron
That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point. Yeah right, anything less then 6,000 posts and you would on thin ice.
-
Lets see if I can make this work.
(http://b-i.forbesimg.com/dandiamond/files/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-05-at-5.34.54-PM.png)
Read more here http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/07/05/why-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-higher-than-you-think/
Then you can begin to apply your mad analyltical skillz.
-
Oh yeah, here is a list of the "not" republican jobs bills that have been stalled in the senate.
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled
Edit: by the way, I know you'll write this stuff off as being rethug sites.
After all, aren't they all.
-
Why would the republicans help pass a "Jobs" bill? WTF is a Jobs bill? Why is the ****ing government trying to create "jobs?" Damn't... Guess in my shitty Civics class in my shitty red state they did forgot to teach me that is was the job of the Government to create Jobs.
If the Government has to pass some shit bill to create Jobs it should tell you that their other policies/laws are hostile to the Job Market. FFS!!! :yahoo:
-
Lets see if I can make this work.
(http://b-i.forbesimg.com/dandiamond/files/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-05-at-5.34.54-PM.png)
Read more here http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/07/05/why-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-higher-than-you-think/
Then you can begin to apply your mad analyltical skillz.
Now you went and done it! You posted FACTS! Poison to libtards!
PW is in his mommy's basement melting -- like a combination of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
So what you're saying is that in 2008, under a Democrat controlled congress, unemployment was bad, and the numbers have stayed bad because the Republicans don't have the numbers to outvote the Dems?
Let's do it this way. I've revised my first statement to make it more accurate for you. I've also broken things down and numbered them. You tell me which numbers are incorrect and/or which numbers with which you disagree.
1-Unemployment is worse now than under President Bush and Republican controlled congress.
2-The American people are hurting.
3-We like to blame this on the Republicans and call them obstructionists;
4-however, the fact remains that for the last few years of the Bush administration and for the first few years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of congress.
5-Since there was no great improvement during these periods of congressional control,
6-I have to assume that to some degree at least some of the Democrats that we have elected are part of the problem.
7-As a result, I’ve decided that from this point on, when I vote in an election, I will vote for candidates based solely on their ability to help the country as a whole and will disregard their political affiliation.
8-This means that if I feel a particular candidate will be beneficial to the country I will vote for said candidate even if he or she is a Tea Party Republican.
9-This does NOT mean that I am turning away from the Democratic Party. I intend to remain a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party.
10-It just means that I've decided to put the well-being of the country above the well-being of the party.
11-I have made this decision because I love the United States of America.
12-I feel the USA is a great country with even greater potential.
-
Why would the republicans help pass a "Jobs" bill? WTF is a Jobs bill? Why is the ****ing government trying to create "jobs?" Damn't... Guess in my shitty Civics class in my shitty red state didn't forgot to teach that is was the job of the Government to create Jobs.
If the Government has to pass some shit bill to create Jobs it should tell you that their other policies/laws are hostile to the Job Market. FFS!!! :yahoo:
A "jobs bill" would be the following:
The Federal, State and local government will withdraw all rules and regulations unless each and every rule passes legislative scrutiny as being absolutely and DEMONSTRABLY necessary to ensure the health of Americans.
Jobs would explode and the GDP would jump to double digits.
-
So what you're saying is that in 2008, under a Democrat controlled congress, unemployment was bad, and the numbers have stayed bad because the Republicans don't have the numbers to outvote the Dems?
Let's do it this way. I've revised my first statement to make it more accurate for you. I've also broken things down and numbered them. You tell me which numbers are incorrect and/or which numbers with which you disagree.
1-Unemployment is worse now than under President Bush and Republican controlled congress.
2-The American people are hurting.
3-We like to blame this on the Republicans and call them obstructionists;
4-however, the fact remains that for the last few years of the Bush administration and for the first few years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of congress.
5-Since there was no great improvement during these periods of congressional control,
6-I have to assume that to some degree at least some of the Democrats that we have elected are part of the problem.
7-As a result, I’ve decided that from this point on, when I vote in an election, I will vote for candidates based solely on their ability to help the country as a whole and will disregard their political affiliation.
8-This means that if I feel a particular candidate will be beneficial to the country I will vote for said candidate even if he or she is a Tea Party Republican.
9-This does NOT mean that I am turning away from the Democratic Party. I intend to remain a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party.
10-It just means that I've decided to put the well-being of the country above the well-being of the party.
11-I have made this decision because I love the United States of America.
12-I feel the USA is a great country with even greater potential.
9 belies 12.
-
blah blah blah
The "Stimulus" jacked federal spending $800BN the year it was passed. Since then we've had nothing but continuing resolutions that have kept federal spending elevated.
Where's our money?
-
The "Stimulus" jacked federal spending $800BN the year it was passed. Since then we've had nothing but continuing resolutions that have kept federal spending elevated.
Where's our money?
Yeah, when was the last time a budget passed through the Senate again?
-
One statistic that needs to be mentioned more often in this conversation IMO
http://nation.foxnews.com/disability/2012/07/10/scary-chart-day-disability-vs-jobs
Investor’s Business Daily reported:
More workers joined the federal government’s disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation’s jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery.
The economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday. But that same month, 85,000 workers left the workforce entirely to enroll in the Social Security Disability Insurance program, according to the Social Security Administration.
The disability ranks have outpaced job growth throughout President Obama’s recovery. While the economy has created 2.6 million jobs since June 2009, fully 3.1 million workers signed up for disability benefits.
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0% After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle. All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe. I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions. That could be a reason I'm not 100% in lock step with the majority at DU and why many here disagree with me but some have seen I try to be reasonable.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
Here's a clue for you DUmmy, just because the word jobs is in the title of a bill doesn't mean it will create jobs. The obstruction from the GOP is the reason things aren't even worse than they are. If Obama had managed to get all his tax increases we would be in much worse shape.
-
Here's a clue for you DUmmy, just because the word jobs is in the title of a bill doesn't mean it will create jobs. The obstruction from the GOP is the reason things aren't even worse than they are. If Obama had managed to get all his tax increases we would be in much worse shape.
Which may happen yet...
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0%
Until this past August, Bush's highest unemployment numbers were obama's lowest (Jan 2009 - 7.8%). It took him 56 months of throwing borrowed money in every direction to get a drop of 0.5%.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/unemployment-rate-down-05-56-months-obama-became-president
For someone who had such a "laser like focus" on job creation, he did a very piss poor job of it.
After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years
Bullshit.
Congressional Republicans have introduced dozens of bills on social issues and other topics, but "zero on job creation."
But the post’s most important flaw is the contention that Republicans have offered "zero" bills on job creation. This number stems from a methodology that also excludes Obama’s American Jobs Act from the category of "job creation" bills. If you look at alternative job-related subject headings, the number of bills offered by lawmakers from both parties actually exceeds most of the social-issues listed in the blog post. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/25/facebook-posts/blog-post-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/
it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle.
Or maybe he was too busy golfing?
(Go ahead and pull that bullshit "but but but, Bush" garbage on me, I dare you.)
I, unlike a lot of shallow people here, do not just post what someone (Rush Limbaugh or Foxnews) tells me to post. I form my own analysis and draw my own conclusions.
:lmao:
You regurgitate every spoon fed, bullshit propaganda point pushed from obama's war room. Do you really expect anyone here to believe that?
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
PW, there are a ton of threads, right here on CC, that say differently. We can start with decade long DUmmie dfk's thought crime execution and work our way from there if you would like.
-
Lets see if I can make this work.
(http://b-i.forbesimg.com/dandiamond/files/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-05-at-5.34.54-PM.png)
Read more here http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2013/07/05/why-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-higher-than-you-think/
Then you can begin to apply your mad analyltical skillz.
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
What about Obama's unwillingness to work with the republicans?
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers?
Would those be the budgets written while Gingrich was SotH?
-
Pretzel Warrior, I can't figure out how to insert a chart, but I found one on the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows unemployment bottoming out at about 4.5 in January 2007, then beginning to rise. What's so significant about January 2007? That's the month the Democrats begin their reign of terror in Congress.
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
Please provide a link where Bush ever said "This was clinton's fault." While you are at it, you can also provide quotes where Reagan said "this was carter's fault."
You should never play "Tu quoque" logical fallacies with people who have facts.
-
So what you're saying is that in 2008, under a Democrat controlled congress, unemployment was bad, and the numbers have stayed bad because the Republicans don't have the numbers to outvote the Dems?
Let's do it this way. I've revised my first statement to make it more accurate for you. I've also broken things down and numbered them. You tell me which numbers are incorrect and/or which numbers with which you disagree.
1-Unemployment is worse now than under President Bush and Republican controlled congress.
2-The American people are hurting.
3-We like to blame this on the Republicans and call them obstructionists;
4-however, the fact remains that for the last few years of the Bush administration and for the first few years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of congress.
5-Since there was no great improvement during these periods of congressional control,
6-I have to assume that to some degree at least some of the Democrats that we have elected are part of the problem.
7-As a result, I’ve decided that from this point on, when I vote in an election, I will vote for candidates based solely on their ability to help the country as a whole and will disregard their political affiliation.
8-This means that if I feel a particular candidate will be beneficial to the country I will vote for said candidate even if he or she is a Tea Party Republican.
9-This does NOT mean that I am turning away from the Democratic Party. I intend to remain a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party.
10-It just means that I've decided to put the well-being of the country above the well-being of the party.
11-I have made this decision because I love the United States of America.
12-I feel the USA is a great country with even greater potential.
Your "analysis" is suspect. Correlation does not equate to causation. How utterly vapid for you to say because of the people in the White House or in Congress at the time of the GLOBAL financial meltdown has anything to do with the gigantic crater we've been crawling our way out of.
I attended a regional economic conference back in 2009 where an economist predicted a wide U-shaped recovery based on the economic structure and the fact that there was no regionality to this giant recession. He was right. We've been slowly pulling out of the hell hole that started downward at the end of 2007 after the DOW hit a then record high in October. You fail to see progress. Not my fault. It's yours.
Another thing to do is compare U.S. economic performance to other industrialized nations during the same period (UK, France, Germany, Japan). All nations have had it rough, but the U.S. and those nations not engaged in wholesale austerity have fared the best.
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
You said that currently unemployment is at 7.0%, I called BS. And by the way, good job moving the goal posts, but I never expected anything less.
I guessed you missed the partial list of jobs bills that I left for ya. That's ok, baby steps.
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
I have a better idea: Why don't you post something from a trusted source, with a valid link, and make a counterpoint? Think you can do that? Do you have to ability to back up your words?
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
I didn't. Care to take a whack at it?
-
Your "analysis" is suspect. Correlation does not equate to causation. How utterly vapid for you to say because of the people in the White House or in Congress at the time of the GLOBAL financial meltdown has anything to do with the gigantic crater we've been crawling our way out of.
After hearing, every damn day, how statistical full employment during Bush's term was the "worst economy since the Great Depression", you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy your righteous indignation at suspect analysis or vapidity...
I attended a regional economic conference back in 2009 where an economist predicted a wide U-shaped recovery based on the economic structure and the fact that there was no regionality to this giant recession. He was right. We've been slowly pulling out of the hell hole that started downward at the end of 2007 after the DOW hit a then record high in October. You fail to see progress. Not my fault. It's yours.
Name of the economist and his study...
Another thing to do is compare U.S. economic performance to other industrialized nations during the same period (UK, France, Germany, Japan). All nations have had it rough, but the U.S. and those nations not engaged in wholesale austerity have fared the best.
Those that engaged in "wholesale austerity" (ie Germany) are in much better shape to survive the worldwide effect of the Fed's shutting off of the money tap. Feel free to show me data that says differently.
-
Nicely done. You should show the same graph from 1993 to 2013 to get the true perspective. How did you slough off Bush's sorry numbers compared to Clinton's spectacularly low unemployment numbers? You said Bush inherited a time bomb and there were things out of Bush's control. Those answers easily apply to Obama's case. You know that. You're just scoring weak political points instead of talking about the underlying boom/bust and bubble economy structure that caused most of the volatility in the past 15 to 20 years.
You also fail to address the GOP utter lack of willingness to work with Obama and Democrats on jobs bills.
Oh bye the way, since you did move the goal posts does that mean I have your permission to blame Clinton for getting the ball rolling on the melt down? Or maybe I could go all the way to Jimma Cartar and the CRA?
-
Why would the republicans help pass a "Jobs" bill? WTF is a Jobs bill? Why is the ****ing government trying to create "jobs?" Damn't... Guess in my shitty Civics class in my shitty red state they did forgot to teach me that is was the job of the Government to create Jobs.
If the Government has to pass some shit bill to create Jobs it should tell you that their other policies/laws are hostile to the Job Market. FFS!!! :yahoo:
You would be right. They can only help FACILITATE a job creation friendly environment by passing tax laws/code, regulation, and other legislation that does not hinder but encourages economic development. What's funny is the hero of DU, JFK, said as much in one of his many speeches about facilitating a decent economy with policies that the liberals like PW would call 'right wing talking points straight from grandpa Rush'. JFK would likely have been banned on DU if he would have tried posting there today and called a tea bagger. The reality of that should give most liberals of some indication of just how extremely left they have gone in their thinking, but the irony is lost on them since most are unaware of what their heroes actually believed and supported. They have bought into a romanticized image which dwells in a very superficial reality of how things were and what their heroes believed. I'll give a few other names that fit that reality-Martin Luther King(far more conservative then most liberals-or blacks-will give him credit for and whose vision is totally misrepresented and disrespected in a day and age of identity politics) and Margaret Sanger(a despicable racist who saw abortion as a means to reduce the undesirables of the world).
-
Why would the republicans help pass a "Jobs" bill? WTF is a Jobs bill? Why is the ****ing government trying to create "jobs?" Damn't... Guess in my shitty Civics class in my shitty red state they did forgot to teach me that is was the job of the Government to create Jobs.
If the Government has to pass some shit bill to create Jobs it should tell you that their other policies/laws are hostile to the Job Market. FFS!!! :yahoo:
A "jobs bill" is what makes intellectually weak voters feel good. We could tell the idiot PW that congress doesn't create jobs but he/she/it won't listen because he/she/it is one of the intellectually weak voters.
-
After hearing, every damn day, how statistical full employment during Bush's term was the "worst economy since the Great Depression", you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy your righteous indignation at suspect analysis or vapidity...
Name of the economist and his study...
Those that engaged in "wholesale austerity" (ie Germany) are in much better shape to survive the worldwide effect of the Fed's shutting off of the money tap. Feel free to show me data that says differently.
Economist's name was John Mitchell.
He is a Principle of M&H Economic Consultants and
Former Western Regional Economist for U.S. Bancorp
You can google him and what he's stated in the past as well as currently.
-
After hearing, every damn day, how statistical full employment during Bush's term was the "worst economy since the Great Depression", you'll have to forgive me if I don't buy your righteous indignation at suspect analysis or vapidity...
Name of the economist and his study...
Those that engaged in "wholesale austerity" (ie Germany) are in much better shape to survive the worldwide effect of the Fed's shutting off of the money tap. Feel free to show me data that says differently.
Germany did not engage in wholesale austerity for its people. As a net exporter and world's 4th largest economy, Germany was in a position to dictate austerity as a condition of bailouts for Greece and Spain among others.
-
Your "analysis" is suspect. Correlation does not equate to causation. How utterly vapid for you to say because of the people in the White House or in Congress at the time of the GLOBAL financial meltdown has anything to do with the gigantic crater we've been crawling our way out of.
I attended a regional economic conference back in 2009 where an economist predicted a wide U-shaped recovery based on the economic structure and the fact that there was no regionality to this giant recession. He was right. We've been slowly pulling out of the hell hole that started downward at the end of 2007 after the DOW hit a then record high in October. You fail to see progress. Not my fault. It's yours.
Another thing to do is compare U.S. economic performance to other industrialized nations during the same period (UK, France, Germany, Japan). All nations have had it rough, but the U.S. and those nations not engaged in wholesale austerity have fared the best.
I don't believe that I made an "analysis" so I don't see how it can be suspect. So tell me which numbers are wrong or that you disagree with.
1-Unemployment is worse now than under President Bush and Republican controlled congress. (Is this not a fact? It doesn't matter whether things were better under anyone else's control as it is speaking strictly today and to the time the Bush was in office with a Republican controlled congress.)
2-The American people are hurting. (Is this not a fact? Or is all the homeless, unemployed, and underemployed just mirages?)
3-We like to blame this on the Republicans and call them obstructionists; (Is this not a fact? Does your bunch at DU, in political office, and in the press not do this every day?)
4-however, the fact remains that for the last few years of the Bush administration and for the first few years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of congress. (Is this not a fact? If not, which party controlled congress in the last few years of the B administration and the first few years of the 0 administration?)
5-Since there was no great improvement during these periods of congressional control, (Is this not a fact? Or are you telling me that there began a great improvement when the Democrats took control of congress at the end of Bush's term?)
6-I have to assume that to some degree at least some of the Democrats that we have elected are part of the problem. (Is this not a fact? Or do you think that placing a (D) behind someone's name make them impeccable and unable to be at fault?)
7-As a result, I’ve decided that from this point on, when I vote in an election, I will vote for candidates based solely on their ability to help the country as a whole and will disregard their political affiliation. (Is this not an intelligent thing to do? Or is it more intelligent to vote for someone who will destroy everything just because he has your party affiliation attached to his name?)
8-This means that if I feel a particular candidate will be beneficial to the country I will vote for said candidate even if he or she is a Tea Party Republican. (Would this not be an intelligent thing to do? Or is being spiteful and letting the country more intelligent?)
9-This does NOT mean that I am turning away from the Democratic Party. I intend to remain a Democrat and a member of the Democratic Party. (Isn't it possible to be a member of a party and not walk in lockstep with it? Or do the Dems, like DU, kick you out for not walking in lockstep?)
10-It just means that I've decided to put the well-being of the country above the well-being of the party. (Do you not wish for the well-being of the country and its citizens? Or are you so intolerant that you'd vote for party over all else?)
11-I have made this decision because I love the United States of America. (Do you not love the USA? Or are you one that these days seems to fit the liberal stereotype?)
12-I feel the USA is a great country with even greater potential. (Do not feel the USA is great and has great potential? If not, why are you still here?)
-
Germany did not engage in wholesale austerity for its people. As a net exporter and world's 4th largest economy, Germany was in a position to dictate austerity as a condition of bailouts for Greece and Spain among others.
Bullshit:
June 08, 2010
The German government has announced a package of spending cuts intended to keep the country's sovereign debt in check. Chancellor Merkel says Germany needs to save around $100 billion over the next four years. She also hopes other countries using the euro will follow Germany's lead and introduce their own austerity programs to help strengthen confidence in the currency.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127552896
Published: Friday, 4 Jan 2013
Germany plans further spending cuts worth up to 6 billion euros ($7.9 billion)in order to achieve its target of a structurally balanced budget in 2014, a newspaper said on Friday, quoting finance ministry sources.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100353656
Try again.
-
Economist's name was John Mitchell.
He is a Principle of M&H Economic Consultants and
Former Western Regional Economist for U.S. Bancorp
You can google him and what he's stated in the past as well as currently.
Thanks for his name, what was the name of the study presented at the seminar?
-
Germany did not engage in wholesale austerity for its people. As a net exporter and world's 4th largest economy, Germany was in a position to dictate austerity as a condition of bailouts for Greece and Spain among others.
How do you define "wholesale austerity"?
Are you saying that the German government did not participate in the free spending habits of Southern Europe which put them into a position "to dictate austerity as a condition of bailouts"?
And for that matter why wouldn't you? Do you have a problem with demanding that a country correct their failing ways before sending them boatloads of money. And how about that, without "wholesale austerity" they have managed to keep Southern Europe afloat to this point without crashing their own economy
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008
The last month of the second term. Is that all you've got to base your crap on? You Libs were complaining about "the worst economy ever" back when we had full employment ant the rate was in the low to mid fours for unemployment.
The last two years of his administration...when everything start going to hell...who was in control of the House and Senate?
The U6 rate right now is at 15%. According to BLS and economic experts that's the real measure of unemployment in the country. The job participation rate is the lowest it's been since WW II
If this were a real recovery we'd be adding more than 200K jobs in any given month. The last real recovery from a recession we were adding a million jobs a month.
As it stands this administration has the record for the longest prolonged 7% or higher unemployment rate of any President since they started keeping track.
You must be so proud.
Today, the unemployment rate is 7.0%
Are you sure about that? Someone just got caught fudging the numbers.
Oh and when you have an ever increasing jobs pool...the number is going to go down. It's not because there is a flood of people being hired that's causing it to go down genius.
After dealing with ZERO help from Republicans on a jobs bill of any kind for the past few years, it is no surprise Obama has not been able to help move the needle.
He hasn't mode the needle because he has ZERO business experience and ZERO clue on what it takes to move said needle.
He didn't get help from the Republicans because he refused to listen to anything they had to say.
All you do is blame your Republican leadership's intransigence when you talk about jobs. They don't care about jobs. McConnell and company had as job 1 making sure Obama wasn't reelected. And they F*CKED THAT UP TOO!
Obama's in office now because the "leadership" thought we'd win by running a Dem Lite campaign.
I would never post that snippet over at DU because it's not what I believe.
And also because you're a coward.
P.S. if you need examples that people can posters can post negative stuff about Obama without getting jury hides or banned over at DU....those threads are in great abundance depending on the week. You don't need my post over there to prove that point.
Link to one genius. Your Lord and Master David Allen has already threatened anyone who bashes the Great and Powerful O.
-
Germany did not engage in wholesale austerity for its people. As a net exporter and world's 4th largest economy, Germany was in a position to dictate austerity as a condition of bailouts for Greece and Spain among others.
Ummm...no not really. They were pretty much the only ones on the Continent here that had any kind of money to lend. Not because they were dictating any kind of demands.
And the bailout loans to Greece were HIGHLY unpopular with the people here.
Spain is still in the crapper. They sound a lot like you whiny Libs in the States. They all want their free government cheese whether it bankrupts the country or not.
-
The southern euros say the word "austerity" but it does not mean what is in the dictionary. Their version of austerity is NOT to cut government but to raise taxes so that there is a smaller deficit. This is inane. Predictably this has exacerbated the deficit and debt. As a percent of GDP all of the southern euro countries have increased the amount of government spending. This is what the economic genius that is team Obama have done here and we are spiraling down the economic shithole.
On a side note. the deficit from FY2013 was not 700 billion dollars it was right up there at a trillion just like all of Obama's deficits have been. The creative (illegal) accounting that was done by team Obama pushed 2013's deficit into 2014 as evidenced by the day after the federal debt jumping by over $450 billion. For DUmmys, not even Obama can spend $450 billion in the first three weeks of a month.
-
The southern euros say the word "austerity" but it does not mean what is in the dictionary. Their version of austerity is NOT to cut government but to raise taxes so that there is a smaller deficit. This is inane. Predictably this has exacerbated the deficit and debt. As a percent of GDP all of the southern euro countries have increased the amount of government spending. This is what the economic genius that is team Obama have done here and we are spiraling down the economic shithole.
Exactly!
-
Unemployment was at 7.3% under Bush in December 2008 and the rate of job josses was staggering as Bush and Paulson stared dumbounded at the wreckage they presided over.
Yeah, that was almost 2 years after Dims took control of Congress. Want to see what it was before they took over? Check December of '06:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Also, unless you have short-term memory problems, like the rest of the moonbats, the Dims didn't run in '06 on the economy, they couldn't. They ran on the war, one of which we're still in, a few more proxies being started up, and Guantanamo, which is still open, and wiretapping, which is still going on.
I guess you Progs check your convictions at the door when it comes to defending one of your fellow clowns.
-
Ignore hard questions, spout liberal boilerplate, misstate opponent's argument and most of all lie, lie, lie. I don't know why you folks waste your time.
The only good thing to come of this is he gets to count his precious responsesssssss.
-
BTW, it's amazing how "brown people" being killed in other countries don't bother you as much these days as it did when Bush was in office. Kinda like it doesn't bother you that GIs are being killed seeing as how I'm seeing no daily body count, no flag-draped coffin pics all over the place, no Cindy Sheehan laying on a grave, etc. ...then again, they never did. They were used as a political football by you and your fellow moonbats. When their use was expended, they were thrown by the wayside just like you do to everyone living in an inner city ghetto. Yeah, I said it. Impoverished people living in the ghetto don't mean shit to you idiots until election time. I don't ever see you doing anything to help them out of poverty, just more promises of entitlements that have destroyed the culture.